Talk:Lead/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 07:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will do this review soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In high school, I was a very good chemistry student, but I have forgotten everything I once knew. Thus, my questions may sound a bit off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is an unusual request, but it is confusing to me to randomly see a compound in words and in symbols. It would seem logical to me to present it in words with the symbols in parenthesis the first time. Subsequently, then it would seem best to just use the symbols.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * It is not clear to me whether the LEAD is comprehensive because I have not read the entire article yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I know pencil are mostly made of graphite, is lead also used in them? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See the "Former applications" section: "Contrary to popular belief, pencil leads in wooden pencils have never been made from lead." So lead isn't and wasn't used in pencils at all. Double sharp (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does the graphite article say that graphite is sometimes called lead?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because when used in pencils, it's usually referred to as "lead" or "pencil lead". Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a picture and/or link for the Roman stylus that you mention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This needs some work, pencilum never was a stylus it was a brush for painting.--Stone (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph is a bit vague. Exposure means many things, but I believe ingestion is what is meant. Lead in a gaseous state that can be inhaled is quite uncommon and I am not sure that if lead particles were in bathing water it would be harmful. Please clarify what exposure means in this context. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Link isotope. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Characteristics
 * "upon contact with air, it begins to tarnish."
 * Does it become green like copper, black like silver, red like blood, a rust color like other metals or some other color when in contact with air? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Lead monoxide is red or yellow)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular gas in the air (e.g., oxygen) that it reacts with?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * not clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put up a ref for the build up of an oxide layer.--Stone (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What changes have you made to the text in response to my concerns above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now it says "upon contact with air, it begins to tarnish by forming an lead oxide layer." Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you notice my concern about whether this resulting compound has a known color? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not lead oxide! It's a complex mixture of lead compounds. The colour can vary with the conditions when the tarnishing takes place, and that's in the article now. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there no link for malleability? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The word is a redirect to ductility, which is linked a word before--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * prevent seems to be in grammatical disagreement with the singular noun (content). Also, the phrase "0.1% bismuth content prevent lead from the industrial usage" seems off. I think something like "0.1% bismuth content is the industrial usage threshold" might be preferred. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Isotopes
 * radioactive (or radioactivity) needs to be linked. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be preferable to say "is exothermic" rather than "would release energy"? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does this section only discuss 5 of the 6 isotopes mentioned in the infobox? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the rest are boring, decaying away too fast and being of no importance (except commercial, which is noted below). Other elements do the same, for the same reason.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The missing isotope, Pb-210, actually occurs naturally in decay chains. But then, so do Pb-211, Pb-212 and Pb-214, which aren't even interesting enough for the infobox. Of course we mention the four stable isotopes. Pb-205 is there because it's the longest-lived unstable one, so we can just mention it in passing. Talking about Pb-210, -211, -212 and -214 would digress too much. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K., but then why is the sixth shown in the infobox if it is so trivial as to not merit a mention in the text?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is of interest because it occurs naturally in the decay chain of U-238, but this is more relevant to the decay chain page and an in-depth explanation would digress too much. Putting it in the infobox is enough. Double sharp (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Chemical reactivity
 * In this context I believe either lead only or lead only form is a hyphenate. Otherwise there is verb subject disagreement (form -> forms), which very well might be the problem since there is no other verb as constructed. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Typo fixed. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oxides and sulfide
 * lead sulfide. Is this just PbS? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't hurry, Tony's right. We gotta mention lead(IV) sulfide (how could I forget). Will add later.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "with the those of sulfur"???--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hopefully corrected. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you merge or expand that final paragraph. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Absorbed it into the previous paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Halides and other salts
 * complexation sounds like a term that needs a link or explanation. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Organolead
 * What is a homolog? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a link for equimolar? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History
 * 1st, 3rd and 4th paragraph all conclude with uncited content. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Occurrence
 * Introductory paragraph has several interesting facts and no sources. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph also ends with uncited facts. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or expand stubby paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Elemental form
 * Merge or expand stubby paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * last one still stubby.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry, didn't notice it the first time. Should be OK now. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several consecutive uncited paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still several uncited paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hopefully OK this time? Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Address citation needed template. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Compounds
 * Merge or expand stubby paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st paragraph still stubby.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Former applications
 * "When the pencil originated as a wrapped graphite writing tool, the particular type of graphite being used was named plumbago (lit. act for lead, or lead mockup)." needs a citation.
 * Why is it in former applications. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved and added a citation. Hopefully it is OK in the lead (if not, could you suggest a better place)? Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All content in LEAD is a summary of the main body. Make sure that each fact in the LEAD is in the main body in equal or greater detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved to "Applications" – perhaps the most defensible place for it. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, decide if you want to have a cited or uncited LEAD. Either each paragraph should be cited or each should be uncited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ The lead (LOL) is now uncited. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Health effects
 * Almost the entire 4th paragraph is uncited. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * almost entire 3rd paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stone. Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Biochemistry of poisoning
 * If particulate accumulation can be an issue regarding lead pipes, why isn't household lead plumbing problematic? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added sentence about the problem into the health section.--Stone (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or expand stubby paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Images
 * File:Lead electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg and File:Lead shielding.jpg don't seem to have the proper licensing. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter states that it was taken by the uploader in the description and the former does indeed have licensing. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither is a proper license for WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look down at the "Licensing" section of the first one. The second one still needs proper licensing. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1st one has some unacceptable rights reserved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1st one is fine per commons:Licensing (the uploader chose this license combination; he was asked about this before, but didn't elaborate, and he doesn't have to). The second is moot. It was uploaded by the image author in times when it was required to release your own work but not required to attach a certain license template (some templates like PD-user had just been crafted on Commons in 2006). Thus I added, and it's up to Tony to question that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Lead mining Barber 1865p321cropped.jpg and File:Lead glazed ceramic cup Tang China 8th century.jpg have WP:CAPTION problems in terms of punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is well researched. Some sections are quite sparse on citations. I rarely complain when a paragraph has at least one citation, but did so a few times in this article. I hope you can find citations in those instances, but if not, I may reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am putting this on hold now. I will monitor progress and reevaluate within seven days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This was great work. I am now PASSING this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)